CSNbbs

Besides from an obvious 8-16 team playoff (which is still the best way to go), there are some other (probably more viable) options.

One would be a mimmick of the BCS, using non-BCS bowls and non-BCS. Since the NCAA has minimal regulation on the BCS outside of sanctioning individual bowls, it would go by just as easily as the BCS and it's ancestors.

It could use bowls that don't have contracts with BCS conferences, like the Liberty, New Orleans, Hawaii, GMAC Bowls. Heck, even take the ones that have contracts with a non-BCS and a BCS 3rd place or below. The Poinsetta, Denver, and other future bowls could also be used.

Though it would not be anything the scale of the BCS, it would give more interesting matchups between champs of non-BCS conferences and a few upper-middle BCS schools. It would be akin to the NIT concept, but like the BCS, a championship series that doesn't have a tournament.

== The Model ==


The model would be similar to BCS, but with non-BCS schools. There will be 5 autobids (as long as BCS uses them) for champions of the MWC, C-USA, WAC, MAC, and SBC, plus 3 at-larges. At-larges will be selected by an arbitrary ranking formula, which would also include available BCS-conference schools for non-championship games.

It will be a rotating model, using 4 selected bowls and, if possible a followup game for a championship. If the followup model is not possible, the championship matchup will be decided by the top 2 rankings.

== The Championship ==

This will be the best of the non-BCS. Since BCS teams can easily go to their own championdship game if they're good enough, they shouldn't be eligible for this game (though I could change my mind with a good argument). It's all fair considering non-BCS teams have basically no change at all to go to the BCS title game.

In the case that the followup psuedo-tourney model is available, the championship game will be held the week after the first four. After the first four are played, whoever the top 2 are will go to the title game. The game will be played at one of the four venues on a yealy-rotating basis.

Alternatively on the followup model, they could have a 4-team playoff involving the top 4 teams in the rankings, with the championship being held in the a rotating venue.

== Coalition/Whatever Trophy ==

Since its going to have a champion, might as well have a trophy to award the champ, in addition to the bowl trophy. "Winner of the (Insert Name) Series".

====

I know it's no subsitute for a BCS autobid, but it could at least make the most of bowls currently available to non-BCS conferences. Since most of the mentioned bowls are traditionless and meaningless really, it would add some spice to an otherwise dull lineup.

What's stopping this from happening? Probably very little. There'd probably be little resistance if the non-BCS conferences made their own "BCS".

== 3-Bowl Alternative ==

Alternatively, it could have 5 autobids, 1 at-large, and use 3 bowls. This would probably work better than the 4-bowl plan.

I'd love to see a playoff system.

Bluma Wrote:Besides from an obvious 8-16 team playoff (which is still the best way to go), there are some other (probably more viable) options.

One would be a mimmick of the BCS, using non-BCS bowls and non-BCS. Since the NCAA has minimal regulation on the BCS outside of sanctioning individual bowls, it would go by just as easily as the BCS and it's ancestors.

It could use bowls that don't have contracts with BCS conferences, like the Liberty, New Orleans, Hawaii, GMAC Bowls. Heck, even take the ones that have contracts with a non-BCS and a BCS 3rd place or below. The Poinsetta, Denver, and other future bowls could also be used.

Though it would not be anything the scale of the BCS, it would give more interesting matchups between champs of non-BCS conferences and a few upper-middle BCS schools. It would be akin to the NIT concept, but like the BCS, a championship series that doesn't have a tournament.

== The Model ==


The model would be similar to BCS, but with non-BCS schools. There will be 5 autobids (as long as BCS uses them) for champions of the MWC, C-USA, WAC, MAC, and SBC, plus 3 at-larges. At-larges will be selected by an arbitrary ranking formula, which would also include available BCS-conference schools for non-championship games.

It will be a rotating model, using 4 selected bowls and, if possible a followup game for a championship. If the followup model is not possible, the championship matchup will be decided by the top 2 rankings.

== The Championship ==

This will be the best of the non-BCS. Since BCS teams can easily go to their own championdship game if they're good enough, they shouldn't be eligible for this game (though I could change my mind with a good argument). It's all fair considering non-BCS teams have basically no change at all to go to the BCS title game.

In the case that the followup psuedo-tourney model is available, the championship game will be held the week after the first four. After the first four are played, whoever the top 2 are will go to the title game. The game will be played at one of the four venues on a yealy-rotating basis.

Alternatively on the followup model, they could have a 4-team playoff involving the top 4 teams in the rankings, with the championship being held in the a rotating venue.

== Coalition/Whatever Trophy ==

Since its going to have a champion, might as well have a trophy to award the champ, in addition to the bowl trophy. "Winner of the (Insert Name) Series".

====

I know it's no subsitute for a BCS autobid, but it could at least make the most of bowls currently available to non-BCS conferences. Since most of the mentioned bowls are traditionless and meaningless really, it would add some spice to an otherwise dull lineup.

What's stopping this from happening? Probably very little. There'd probably be little resistance if the non-BCS conferences made their own "BCS".

== 3-Bowl Alternative ==

Alternatively, it could have 5 autobids, 1 at-large, and use 3 bowls. This would probably work better than the 4-bowl plan.

Nice thoughts, but if they do that, they might as well create another division within Division 1 ala Division 1AA and drop the current Division 1AA down to Division 1AAA. I don't like the idea of creating another division.

Does the NIT in basketball require a second division? Something NIT-like for non-BCS schools was all I really had in mind. Winning the championship in this would be similar to saying you won the NIT in basketball. Not a substitute for the real BCS.

This isn't "giving up" to the BCS, but just a plan to maximize interest in the non-BCS bowls.

I think it could coexist with the BCS, and non-BCS teams will still have the same shot as they always have had at earning the BCS bids, which is slim-to-none.

I figured if the current NCAA setup allows a BCS, which was formed from the traditional bowls of those conferences, why haven't non-BCS schools done something similar with their bowls as well? The BCS isn't a legit nat'l championship, and neither would this be legit. But it would add some import to the bowls.

Yeah, but...

Every non-BCS conference (especially the MWC--after last year with Utah) is trying to "be the next BCS-worthy conference". I would love to see what you propose happen, but until the WAC, MWC, MAC, Conf-USA, and SunBelt (well, maybe the SunBelt realizes they aren't very close) get over their inferiority complex, they will all step all over each other to try to play with the big boys.